• “Ways shall be found to involve programme beneficiaries in the management of relief aid.”
• “The disaster-affected population actively participates in the assessment, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the assistance programme.”
• “Members involve beneficiaries in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and report to them on progress, subject only to serious operational constraints.”
• “The agency shall enable beneficiaries and their representatives to participate in programme decisions and seek their informed consent.”

•  We must always seek participation by those affected by our work - during all stages of the project cycle (see participation tool);
• We must report to them about the programme’s intentions and progress - and seek their consent to our work with and for them.

The purpose of participation

Participation can be described by way of its purpose:

• Instrumental: As a (short-term) means to achieve a project result - for instance, by contributing local inputs like sand and labour for the construction of a school,
• Transformational: As a (long-term) end in itself as development of capacity of rights-holders and duty-bearers (see Rights-based approach) to close actual protection gaps and withstand future emergencies.

Aspects to Consider

• Supports, or is even a precondition for, a rights-based approach;
• May reveal capacities and vulnerabilities that would otherwise remain unrecognised and therefore untapped or unaddressed;
• Demonstrates respect and sustains dignity of the beneficiaries in the eyes of themselves and of others;
• May support programme quality (realism and relevance of goal, target group and methodology; efficiency (save costs); and effectiveness (ensure the desired result));
• Helps establish the project indicators and helps measure progress against them:
• Strengthens sustainability of the intervention, because the beneficiaries will protect and maintain its results;
• May improve the security for DRC;
• May provide indirect access to no-go areas for DRC (but security for beneficiaries must be considered);
• Builds the participants’ capacity and sense of responsibility to cope with future adverse situations and/or link with long-term development; and
• May improve the protection of beneficiaries by giving them confidence and voice to represent themselves.

• The beneficiaries of a project seldom constitute a homogeneous group and therefore may necessitate different participation methodologies;
• Overlooking the most vulnerable because the mode of participation discriminates against their involvement;
• Stigmatisation or discrimination of beneficiaries by being identified as ‘vulnerable’;
• Participants’ bias may undermine DRC’s impartiality (That aid is given irrespective of race, creed, etc.) and independence (not taking side in a conflict);
• Security risks for beneficiaries under a conflict-scenario, by being perceived as providing sensitive information or identifying with DRC, or just by becoming visible;
• Security risks for DRC personnel;
• Raising expectations, or having to answer for unfulfilled expectations raised by others!;
• Overlapping participation or inconsistent participation methodologies with agencies in the same area;
• Lack of flexibility in the project framework does not allow for the process and outcomes of genuine participation;
• Scepticism or even resistance by local culture or structures;
• Inadequate DRC staff commitment or competence to practise participation in the context of local culture and norms for engagement (note: even authoritarian cultures normally have traditional ways of consultation and representation);
• Urgency. But even in the initial stage of an emergency it is necessary and normally also possible, at least, to consult;
• Time economy is not only a matter for DRC but also for beneficiaries and stakeholders who are giving their time for participation at the expense of spending it on alternative means for survival;
• Seasonal constraints: Consider for instance agricultural peak seasons that determine both availability and sense of relevance; and
• Costs.

Other aspects that must be considered:

• Get away from the city, office, hotel, 4x4, taxi, airport and tarmac – and get as close to your target group as possible;
• Listen to and discuss with the target group; and
• Learn from them.

Representation:

Depending on the urgency, nature and size of an intervention, participation may only be possible through representation. The following aspects must then be considered:

• Whether existing representative structures can be used, or new structures must be established in order to complement existing structures for the sake of ensuring representation of all affected groups;
• Legitimacy in the eyes of those represented; and
• Will and capacity to speak for, and feed back to, all (beneficiaries seldom constitute a homogeneous group).

If it is deemed necessary to establish additional or new means for representation, consider:

• A risk that they may be perceived as divisive (careful consultation with existing structures may lessen this risk);
• Our actual ability to establish means for representation that meet the criteria above;
• Special facilitation may be needed to prompt participation by people used to exclusion; and
• Cost and sustainability.

Defining participatory indicators:

Beneficiaries’ opinions of what will constitute a success of an intervention are obviously important for defining its indicators, but they may also be the only realistic way of measuring impact in situations where it is not possible to establish a baseline prior to the intervention.